[Standards] Re: We should require AI disclosure

On Mon, 11 May 2026 at 11:18, Marvin W. via Standards <standards(a)xmpp.org> wrote: I agree with this analysis. However I would note that "recent case law" is specific to each jurisdiction and subject to change. I would also note to all members that it's tempting to extrapolate from "AI generated content can not be copyrighted" that such content is outside copyright law and therefore cannot then violate copyright law. However, this is not an accepted fact. These two aspects are independent. Due to the evolving relationship between "AI" and the law, I think we must require disclosure, at a minimum, regardless of whether Board decides to permit such contributions. Having this on record ensures there are no nasty surprises down the road, which is the primary purpose of the IPR policy in the first place. For various reasons, I would very happily forbid use of LLMs and similar tools in spec development. However, similar to the recent debate about use of "real names", this is basically unenforceable. Drawing clear lines between the extremes of "I only used it for grammar checking" and "it wrote the whole document" is practically impossible, especially at the rate such models are being integrated into everyday tools and services — there is simply no way to prove someone did or did not use them. Regards, Matthew